Mrs. Nikita Sachin Taralkar Vs Shri. Sachin Madhav Taralkar

¶1

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2022

¶4

NIKITA SACHIN TARALKAR)...APPLICANT
V/s.
SCHIN MADHAV TARALKAR )...RESPONDENT

¶5

Mr. C. K. Bhangoji, Advocate for the Applicant-wife.
None for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:7th DECEMBER, 2023
P.C. :

¶7

1.This is an application filed by the wife seeking transfer of
restitution proceedings filed by the Respondent – husband before the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, District Nashik to the
Family Court at Bandra.

¶8

2.Mr. Bhangoji, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit
that none appears for the Respondent despite service. The record
indicates that the Respondent has been duly served.

¶9

3. Learned Counsel submits that the marriage between the

¶10

Applicant-wife and the Respondent-husband was solemnized on 15th
February, 2021 at Nashik. That after the marriage, the Applicant came

¶11

Nikita Gadgil 1/8

¶12

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶13

to stay with the Respondent and his family. That for a month, the
Applicant and his family behaved good with the Applicant, however,
thereafter they started harassing her and picking up quarrels on petty
issues. Being fed up with the harassment, cruelty and mental agony to
her by the Respondent – husband and his family, on 21st September,
2021, the Applicant came to Mumbai.

¶14

4.It is submitted that the Respondent started sending sms and
whatsapp messages by calling the Applicant as “Divorcee” and
defaming her image before the relatives. The Respondent also filled up
a form in the name of the Applicant in the matrimonial centre for new
marriage by uploading status of the Applicant as “Divorcee”. Learned
Counsel submits that on 6th December, 2021, the Applicant sent a legal
notice to the Respondent to cease and desist in the acts of mental
torture, arrogant and unlawful behavior and unnecessarily victimizing
her by making falls and defamatory allegations against her. The
Respondent replied to the same. However, he did not cease and desist
in his acts. Thereafter, on 30th December, 2021, the Applicant filed FIR
No. 611 of 2021 against the Respondent inter alia under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code, in the Nehru Nagar Police Station at Kurla.

¶15

Nikita Gadgil 2/8

¶16

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶17

5.On 11th March, 2022, the Applicant filed the domestic violence
proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Vikhroli,
Mumbai. Thereafter, on 14th March, 2022, the Respondent filed
Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Right before the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, Nashik. On 30th March, 2022, the
Applicant-wife has filed the divorce proceedings before the Family
Court at Bandra.

¶18

6.Mr. Bhangoji, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit
that the Applicant is B.Sc. (I.T.) and has recently joined a private
company at CBD, Belapur, earning salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month.
That her father is retired and mother is a housewife. That she has one
brother, who is taking education and one sister, who is a practicing
doctor at Kurla. Learned Counsel submits that the distance from Kurla
to Niphad is 200 km one way and to reach Niphad, the Applicant has to
leave one day before and spend at least Rs. 3000/- each time, she has
to attend the Court at Niphad. Learned Counsel submits that on the
other hand, the Respondent is an Engineer working in a compnay by
name of Amdocs at Pune.

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 3/8

¶20

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶21

7.Learned Counsel submits that in the divorce proceedings filed by
the Applicant-wife, the issues have been framed and the Applicant has
also filed evidence in view of No Written Statement order against the
Respondent, since he was not appearing in the Court at Bandra.
Learned Counsel submits that to set aside the No Written Statement
order, the Respondent has now filed an application before the Family
Court at Bandra. With respect to the proceedings in Niphad Court,
learned Counsel submits that the Applicant has filed Written Statement,
however, the issues are yet to be framed. It is submitted that the
Applicant is required to take care of her retired father, one brother, who
is taking education along with her sister, who is a practicing doctor at
Kurla and it would not only be inconvenient for her to travel all the
way 200 km to Niphad, spending at least Rs. 3000/-for one way
journey and leave one day before and therefore, this Court in view of
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V.
Aishwarya Vs. A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha1 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi
Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi2, transfer the restitution proceedings filed
by the Respondent -husband before the Court at Niphad to the Family
Court at Bandra.

¶22

1 SCC Online SC 1199 (2022)

¶23

2 2005 (12) SCC 237

¶24

Nikita Gadgil 4/8

¶25

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶26

8.Learned Counsel also submits that since the divorce proceedings
are already at an advanced stage of evidence, it would be in the interest
of justice that the restitution proceedings also be heard along with the
divorce proceedings filed before the Family Court at Bandra.

¶27

9.I have heard Mr. Bhangoji, the learned Counsel for the Applicant
and also considered the submissions made by him.

¶28

10.The Respondent though served has chosen neither to remain
present nor be represented by a duly authorised Advocate. As such the
allegations and submissions made in the application remain
unchallenged.

¶29

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya Vs.
A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha (supra),has observed that the cardinal
principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the
proceedings. That in matrimonial matters wherever Courts are called
upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into
consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social
strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of

¶30

Nikita Gadgil 5/8

¶31

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶32

life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances
of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose
protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance. Given the
prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian Society, generally, it
is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering
transfer.

¶33

12.In the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the convenience
of the husband and the convenience of the wife, observed that it is the
convenience of the wife that has to be preferred over the convenience
of the husband.

¶34

13.In the case at hand, it is observed that although the Applicant
and the wife appear to be employed and earning salaries, however,
considering that the wife is living with her retired father and housewife
mother, having a brother, who is taking education and taking care of
the entire family along with her sister, who is a practicing doctor, it
would certainly be inconvenient if she has to travel 200 km one way
spending at least Rs. 3000/- for the journey and to leave the family one
day in advance to attend the matter at Niphad. More so, that the

¶35

Nikita Gadgil 6/8

¶36

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶37

divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court at Bandra are at
the stage of evidence, which proceeding the Applicant would anyways
have to attend. The proceedings in the Court at Niphad are restitution
proceedings filed by the Respondent – husband and those proceedings
if heard together with the divorce proceeding at Bandra, would save
unnecessarily expenditure of judicial time.

¶38

14.Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the decisions discussed above, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, in my view ends of justice would meet if the restitution
proceedings filed by the Respondent – husband before the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division at Niphad are transferred to the Family
Court at Bandra and heard along with the divorce proceedings filed by
the Applicant – wife.

¶39

15.Accordingly, Hindu marriage petition No. 88 of 2022 filed by
the Respondent – husband for Restitution of Conjugal Right before the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, District Nashik be
transferred to the Family Court at Bandra and be heard along with the
Marriage Petition (L) No. A 2155 of 2022 filed by the Applicant – wife
before the Family Court at Bandra.

¶40

Nikita Gadgil 7/8

¶41

 12-MCA-252-2022.doc

¶42

16.The Application stands allowed in the above terms.

¶43

17.It is made clear that any observation(s) on the merits of the
dispute between the parties is only to consider this Application which
shall not influence the trial or disposal of the Marriage Petition which is
to be tried and decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the said
observation(s).

¶44

18.This order to come into effect only upon removal of the office
objections by the Applicant.

¶45

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2023.12.07 19:00:15 +0530

¶46

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶47

Nikita Gadgil 8/8

Mrs. Nikita Sachin Taralkar v. Shri. Sachin Madhav Taralkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nikita Sachin Taralkar v. Shri. Sachin Madhav Taralkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Pooja Mayur Patil Vs Mr Mayur Pandurang Patil

Mrs Pooja Mayur Patil Vs Mr Mayur Pandurang Patil

Zubair Aslam Jerry vs Sale Proceeds of M T Aeon

Tasneem Khatri vs Yunus Ilyas Khatri

Pooja Pravin Khanderao Vs Pravin Prahlad Khanderao

Minaxi Satra vs Mayank Jaswantilal Shah